Nicol and Selvanayagam v United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jan 2001

(Admissibility) The applicants took part in an anti-fishing protest at an angling match on 28 May 1994. Their aim was to sabotage the match by throwing twigs in the water close to the anglers’ hooks so as to disturb the surface, while other protestors sounded horns to frighten the fish. When they refused to stop, they were arrested. The custody record gave the reason for their initial detention as to ‘allow a period of calming, and to determine method of processing’. They were later kept in custody in order to take them before the magistrates for the purpose of being bound over to keep the peace.
Held: The complaint under article 5.1 was manifestly unfounded. The initial detention was to prevent them from committing an offence and their continued detention was for the purpose of bringing them before the court on suspicion of having committed an ‘offence’. Both the initial arrest and their subsequent detention were therefore compatible with article 5.1(c).
G Ress P
[2001] ECHR 900, 32213/96
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .

Cited by:
CitedHicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis SC 15-Feb-2017
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.640530